[at-l] R&R..the unanswered points....

In a message dated 6/14/01 7:21:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kahley7@ptd.net
writes:
<< Kinnicinic asked:
> We are now starting to see some of
> the dregs of society, whom we had avoided by hitting the trail, out there.
> It will only get worse on this trail, partly because of Trailplace.
>
Please explain what you mean specifically in this sentence.
+++ Not my post. The "dregs" are welcome by me if they follow the rules.
"Dregs" usually don't clearcut large tracts on the corridor's edge for
condos. If anyone still takes the original 'Regional Planning' prospectus
seriously, it shows that the AT was designed as a place where these persons
could get it together in a healthy way.
Vcat asked:
> I do feel that much more approving of socializing hikes is encountered on
>websites by people intending well by accepting all forms of hike but not
>realizing they are lending assistance to lowering Trail standards.
My impression from this statement is that you believe people who weekend or
section hike, and those who accept such hiking, are lowering trail standards.
Is that what you're saying?
+++ This is my post. Wrong impression and, as usual, interpreting my
opinions in the worst possible way in order to attach extreme connotations to
make them unpalatable. The response is designed to make me say "all
non*through*hikers are illegitimate." 'Come on, I think we know better than
that. It was meant more towards roving party, frat bender type hikes than
the other mainstay usage's you speak of. These hikes will probably always be
there, but seeing people enforce HYOH in defiance of persons actually
attempting to establish a standard (not a dirty word) creates an atmosphere
of permittance and indirectly contributes to the problem.
DaRedhead asked:
1) In what way has this list, or the people on it, shown that we are *not*
serious about Trail advocacy?
and
+++ My first answer would be a unanimous naysaying of all of or friend's
efforts at Trail conservation. I have not seen one budge of admitting ANY of
the achievements the banished one has done. Any superficial tool of
tangential criticism of his efforts is permissible in order to throw a wrench
in his works. The difference being that although many AT*Ler's may be making
efforts on their own, any outsider reading this site will be lead to believe
that Trail efforts are all bogus and persons like WF who step up and make a
stand for the Trail will be cut down as being egotistical quacks by the Trail
insiders. This sets a bad precedence. What this outsider will learn is that
childish taunting and reckless attacks on the other site are the first
priority and stepping up and participating for the Trail will be done only
after a gauntlet of pillory is survived by the protagonist. If Wingfoot
doesn't help himself is secondary to this. What you may not realize is this
is exactly why he does it. In this instance, I believe Wingfoot acts
appropriately in proactively organizing and filling the need for first
response advocacy.
2) How, given the earlier post by Paddler, can you say that the scales are
tipped in WF's direction on this matter?
+++ Simply because WF cuts to the chase without wallowing in popularity
contests before figuring out what to do. At least he is trying and not mainly
focusing on complaining about other site's techniques. Trailplace could
become the public constituency needed to go beyond the limits ATC is bound by
because it is a formal institution. Wingfoot was preserving the Gulf Tract
while others were busy talking about him.
Furthermore, although Wingfoot may toot his own horn, I don't see ATC
giving back the money from the new memberships corresponding with the surge
in Trail use following his efforts. We'll just not mention that. Jim should
include the spike in ATC sales and contributions following the Wingfoot
egotistical self*advertisement if he wanted to be totally objective. I expect
somebody will make an effort to respond that there is no evidence of this or
this is one of WF's lies. At this point I start feeling sorry for the poor
%$@#$*. These are usually the facts left out during a witch hunt. And no, he
doesn't extend any hand for reconciliation (I wonder why?).
Fur asked:
....to lowering Trail standards
Could someone please send me this list of trail standards! I've never
seen this list posted before. And, who puts out this list?
+++ Well, Garvey for one. ATC for another. Let's see an ALDHA member
trash talk this venerable icon! I see little mention of this famous hiker by
responders. I was inspired to hike the AT after finishing 'AH 2'. When I
speak of this wickedly unsubmittable "traditionalism" I compare Garvey to
naked hikers being jailed for public drunkenness and yellow blazers
submitting for 2000 milers status. It is more a role model than a written ten
commandments. When you press traditionalists for exact justifications you
take the wrong side and aid what you already know to be a detriment to the
Trail. Purists and traditionalists have a place and deserve not to be shunned
off the screen in AT circles. These fundamental principles of AT hiking
should at least be given a chance to present themselves in order to educate
hikers for the Trail's sake. If Wingfoot has burned all the bridges around
him, I think he sees it as a way to be able to present these views without
hindrance. The conservation then goes beyond that. An isolated tower, maybe,
but at least a place where his "Grail" is safe.
And i would like a few more details (that's where the devil lays(lies ?)
regarding:
*** We'll start at the form of serious hike that ATC once took as important
enough to require proof.
Please explain a serious hike under traditional definitions or your
definition.
+++ I kind of agree that the main trail should be required to have been
followed to claim a through*hike. I believe most of the Rodale hikers at
least set out to do that * I know Garvey did. The ATC embodied the authority
overseeing the Trail. If this agency once felt that through*hiking was
serious enough to require detailed proof positive of actually having walked
the entire Trail, well that gave more meaning to a through*hike. It has been
suggested that many of the mentalities who end up trashing hostels or gaining
a bad reputation for the Trail were ones with less than a conforming attitude
towards the old school approach. Idle hands etc... In any case, I don't see
the evil in encouraging people to hike the entire Trail and uphold old
standards. If this is brought up on AT*L, most likely the poster will be
accused of being a Wingfoot "toady" or something. Not good. What would be
wrong in making it a "new" standard?
******The next would be one that promotes behavior true to the Trail's
definition by ATC as a primitive place to be upheld.
Please specifically define the desired behavior.
+++ The best way would be to first read MacKaye's intentions in the
prospectus and then the ATC desired guidelines. The more one keeps things
simple and natural the more he is on the true Trail. Cell phones fit in
nowhere in these desired conditions. The AT is still a project and movement.
It requires participation and a preexisting mindset of existing in the
corridor according to these definitions. Most Trail enterers don't get that
deep. The Trail wouldn't even be here if MacKaye hadn't.
*******I guess traditionalism would best be described as keeping such a
level of new
interest in the Trail controlled to the point that it doesn't interfere
with what the Trail is.
Since you have not responded positively to my suggestion that dan shut down
TP,
I'm assuming you think it should continue (with the new emphasis on
"traditionalism"),
Should we take it then that you feel all other's sites should shut down if
they fail to do likewise?
Specifically...how do you seek to suppress new interest?
+++ No. That is putting words in my mouth. I like the ALDHA Gatherings and
consider them to be an essential warm component of the Trail's universe. If
AT*L managed to save the Place, well they have earned their place right there
alone. One need not compete against or cancel the other. You all know how
Wingfoot is, if he banned the Place drive he probably knew it was covered and
wanted to focus his energies elsewhere. The more for the Trail the better.
Sadly, it could already be the case that Trailplace has been technically shut
down as a community participation site by withdrawl of support (I won't
comment on why in either direction)
Finally......about quotas.
How would these be allotted, specifically. what percentages to
thru hikers,
section hikers,
dayhikers,
weekenders?
Groups such as Scouts?
How would they be allotted?
First come first served?
Lottery?
If the thruhiker quota was filled, and X percentage of the thru allotees
dropped out at Neels, would those slots be reallocated to other hikers?
How?
Would there be a staging area where hikers could await a washout slot?
How would the NPS decide if a hiker had washed out or was taking
town time to reorganize or heal?
Would there be a time limit to town time?
Would a hiker need to keep to a proscribed schedule to maintain the daily
quota
and a smoothly managed flow?
If not, how would the differing speed be handled to prevent bunching up?
What would be the penalty for failure to meet such scheduling guidelines?
Loss of ticket?
Would dayhikers, section hikers, weekenders be banned during thru season?
When would thru season be?
How much will the ticketing and monitoring cost?
Where will the funds come from?
*** This is very difficult and deserves a whole post for itself. I will
say that Denali National Park does it without all this resistance and
questioning. Why not the AT too? I'll turn it around and ask what, then,
would your solution to the high season crowding be?
I admit there are a lot of questions here, but you came to convince us.
If your serious in this quest for our support, the time spent answering would
seem worthwhile.
+++ Thank You, * R 'n R
_______________________________________________ >>